This document outlines the marking criteria for Assignment 1 Part B of HSNS 366, an ethical case review. Students will be assessed on their ethical review of principles applied to a case study, identification of teamwork factors and recommendation of strategies, clear definition and explanation of concepts, and logical analysis supported by literature. Deductions may be applied for issues like word limits, formatting, or referencing errors. The provisional mark is out of 30 and the assessor is Becky Broomfield.

1. HSNS
366
Assignment
1
Part
B
Marking
Criteria-­‐Ethical
Case
Review
Marking
criteria
Achievement
level
Mark
Ethical
review
• Completion
of
Smart
Sparrow
learning
module
and
Conducts
a
comprehensive
review
of
principles
• Discusses
relevant
ethical
principles
and
Applies
principles
appropriately
to
the
ethical
case
SS
2.5/2.5
9/10
Teamwork
• Identifies
relevant
factors
and
processes
for
successful
teamwork
• Discusses
strategies
that
can
be
used
in
health
contexts
and
Relates/recommends
strategies
for
the
ethical
case
6/10
Content
• Clear
identification,
definition
and
explanation
of
central
concepts
• Evidence
of
focused
reading
and
research
to
locate
and
develop
knowledge
of
key
topic
areas
Analysis
• Logical
development
and
application
of
ideas
to
the
topic
• Review
of
current
and
relevant
literature
to
support
thoughts
and
ideas
• Thoughtful
analysis
and
discussion
integrating
information
from
the
evidence-­‐based
literature
and
synthesizing
responses
to
key
topic
area
7/10
Provisional
mark
/30
DEDUCTIONS
are
applied
for
the
following:
• Inappropriate
presentation,
grammar,
punctuation,
spelling
and
referencing
• Minimal
or
extended
word
limit
(maximum
10%
leeway)
• Poor
formatting
and/or
presentation
• Failure
to
check/edit
spelling,
grammar
and
punctuation
errors
• Incorrect/incomplete
referencing
Final
mark
22/30
Assessed
by:
Becky
Broomfield
Comments: